Scientists generally agree that the universe – defined as everything in existence – has not always existed. It came into existence with a bang about 13 billion years ago. This bang was a big one, so they named it the “Big Bang.”
Before the Big Bang, there was no space, no energy and no time – not even empty space, zero energy or stopped time. There was nothing.
And then everything was created out of this nothing. We call this everything “creation.” It’s the tangible universe around us, seen and unseen. It’s the energy, the matter, and the progression of time.
As a matter of logic, creation must have been created. And also as a matter of logic, whatever caused creation to be created is, by definition, the creator of it.
How the creator created creation, we haven’t a clue. Oh sure, there are theories that our universe is one of many “parallel” universes, blah blah blah, but there’s zero evidence for any of those theories. Those theories are mainly semantics games. They really just beg the question: If our universe is a “parallel” universe to some other one – some other creation – then how was that one created if not by a creator?
In short, if you acknowledge that the universe – creation – exists, you cannot deny that it was created by a creator. The rest of organized religion is just puny humans quibbling about the nature of this creator, in the tribal, shallow ways they do. They’re not striving for understanding; they’re arguing that their creator is better than yours.
Whatever.
On the other hand, if you deny that the universe exists, you should stop reading and immediately check yourself into the hospital.
Here’s where it gets interesting. In order to create the universe – in order to create creation – the creator must have been around (but around what?) before the universe came into existence. The laws of cause-and-effect go only one direction in time. Yesterday’s effect cannot be produced by today’s cause. The creation could not be caused by something occurring after it happened.
But the universe is defined to include everything, which includes a creator. And so, unless you deny the laws of cause-and-effect by contending that the creator was created in the creation and somehow cast a cause backward in time to create the effect of that creation, this creator must have existed before it existed. But how can something exist before it exists?
These violations, of not only physical laws but basic laws of logic and cause-and-effect, seem the very definition of a “miracle.”
Given that the creator created all of creation – and did so before the creator even existed, or, alternatively, the creator itself existed before it existed – I can only conclude that this creator is capable of anything. Virgin births, Red Sea partings, growing my hair back, you name it.
That the creator that created creation is omnipotent does not alone validate any particular religion – the mere fact that the creator is capable of something does not prove it did that something. It just says that, scientifically speaking, anything and everything is possible.
Remember all of that in this season of goodwill and at other times as well. Be merry – I have a hunch that our miraculous, puckish creator is. And humble.
the Aspen beat 
Laws of physics, chemistry and quantum mechanics being what they are … if there was no Creator then all matter in the universe would just naturally break down, decay, into its lowest common denominators.
Yet the Creator directs all of these atomic particles to build up, to create, an infinite number of galaxies with stars, and with their own solar systems all acting and behaving according to the laws of physics. It all seems to operate and function with perfection … as if designed that way by a Divine Creator.
The secularists promoting spontaneous evolution seem to disregard this aspect, wrapping and warping themselves into twisted knots of self-contradictions.
Let’s take it as a given that the Bing Bang Theory is more than just a theory, but is actually a Law. The question then becomes … who pulled the trigger to initiate the Bang?!?
Our own planet Earth seems perfectly designed for us, the human species, along with all of our other earthly life forms. The Moon orbits our Earth while our Earth orbits the Sun along with the other planets more perfectly synchronized than the finest made Swiss timepiece.
This is nothing but miraculous when considering it all.
So, a Biblical flood, along with miraculous plagues rained down on Pharaoh, and a miraculous Birth all seem entirely possible when put into this context.
Wishing a Blessed Christmas and a Prosperous New Year to all …
I’ll grant you almost everything you say, But just a, pardon the pun, heads up. I’m not sure the Creator can grow your head back. Merry Christmas and peace to men of goodwill.
Sorry, head yes, but hair no. 🤭
I would suggest one and all read Saint Thomas Aquinas’s “Five Proofs For The Existence Of God” which I discovered in a philosophy class from our professor when I attended Saint Louis University. Short, sweet, and to the point.
“…[I]mpish…” no, “…miraculous…” yes, and YES! And YES, YES, YES!!!!
JMJ
This should not have been directed at Richard Baker’s post but rather at Glenn’s article, “ye of little faith.”
JMJ
We will definitely look into St Thomas’ “Five proofs.” Thank you for reminding us.
I’m surprised that the new Stanford Guide to Acceptable Words (that is, an index of harmful language that must be eliminated) hasn’t forbidden the use of “universe,” a word that denotes a realm where everything turns (vers-, vert-) around one entity (“unum”), which is to say, its Creator. Indeed, since a “university” denotes a cloistered place where all pursuits of knowledge amount to the pursuit of an understanding of that Creator, how can these iconoclastic Stanford dimwits bear to think of themselves as being at a God-centered institution?
Note, gentle readers, that I changed the title of the piece. I submit that those who deny that creation was created by a creator lack a basic understanding of science, logic, and cause-and-effect. It’s not faith that they lack — they have great faith in their atheism.
That is an excellent insight: the “rational materialism” view of atheists sits on an assumption that everything that we see around us is the result of random molecular interactions. However, mathematicians and physicists have show that even a small fraction of existence (e.g., a tiny fraction of DNA) could not have been created randomly…the odds against such being astronomically (literally) high, involving hyper-integers such as 1/(a number greater than all the atoms believed to exist in our universe). Even an atheist astrophysicist such as Stephen Hawking was reduced to postulating that “creation” was created by aliens. I for one, as a scientist, consider myself blessed to be living at that point in time when the rational materialism of scientists is (finally) crumbling due to its own contradictions and true science is returning to the disciplines of Aristotle and Aquinas.
I’m neither a scientist nor a philosopher, but it strikes me that everything about the phrase “rational materialism” is problematic. For one thing, matter is becoming increasingly defined not just as “visible stuff,” but as bound up with invisible postulates such as energy, “forces,” dark matter and dark energy, and so forth, making it increasingly hard to deny that there is a spiritual dimension in there somewhere.
For another, the insistence on randomness and accident to explain the patterns perceived in the material world
seems anything but “rational.” “Where there is a Design, there must be a Designer” — Thomas Jefferson echoing Thomas Aquinas — is such a quIntessentially rational inference! Even a blindfolded Jackson Pollock hurling paint at a canvas is, at the very least, a prime mover.
Well either the Creator is improving my vision (would be a very welcome miracle) OR the blog has made the font more readable (also would be a very welcome miracle) 😊
Either way, Merry Christmas to all, of faith or none.
All those Old Testament miracles – that was the easy part. The hard part was savig us from our sins, which meant becoming man and living a life of obedience and then suffering on the cross . . .
Amen, brother. Oremus.
JMJ
We provide the following comment about this otherwise excellent, as usual, article.
“…[I]mpish…” no, “…miraculous…” yes, and YES! And YES, YES, YES!!!!
Star of Wonder, Star of Night…….hope this link will be a blessing to you and your readers into 2023!!!
https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/id/AQMkADAwATIwMTAwAC0wMTJkLWIwZDEtMDACLTAwCgBGAAAD4bjkWZM3i0%2BbZ9i%2BtgqxyAcA0G%2BkXk4F3Ei1i6WAnA4o6gAAAgEMAAAA0G%2BkXk4F3Ei1i6WAnA4o6gAF6A3eXAAAAA%3D%3D
Pslam 147:4
P
So this link went into deep space……..try this…….https://thejohn1010project.com/
You’ll be blessed….
P
If nothing existing prior to the Big Bang, what was it that banged when the Big Bang banged?
Thanks for your continued postings. Merry Christmas
The Christian answer is The Son of God. The 4th century Nicene Creed states clearly that He was “Born of the Father before all ages” and that “Through Him all things were made.” He was what John had deemed The Logos — the Creative Word that “was in the beginning.”
Put simply, Jesus, as He was known to us when dwelling among us, was The Big Bang.
And Catholics hold that His Crucifixion is the centerpiece of All Creation, radiating out in all directions through space and time. Every Catholic Mass is a “Christ Mas(s),” re-enacting that Holy Sacrifice upon a Roman Cross.
The insight is that nothing existed within our universe before the Big Bang. As to what existed before that Big Bang (before the singularity), that can only be a theological question. We do know that a “forever” universe would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (i.e., because of entropy).
Pingback: Links and Comments | Rockport Conservatives
Every time someone challenges my faith I suggest they read Dr. Mary Neal (Surgeon) account of her NDE.
After reading a few others as well, it seems there are over 20+ million people in the world that have experienced NDEs…..Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Catholics, Agnostics, Protestants, etc.
And their stories are remarkable quite similar — which tells me they ALL could not have been “Smoking the SAME Batch of Weed” !